Through the Looking Glass: The Case for Human Reproductive Cloning

2. The most effective argument in his essay is when he says “Millions are suffering. This is precisely the argument that research-cloning advocates are deploying today to allow them to break the moral barrier of creating.” In this argument he points out how the research advocates can't be trusted because a year ago, they assured they only wanted to do stem cell research on discarded embryos. He also points out that the research advocates create new excuses in order to keep breaking the moral barrier. In addition, they promised to only grow human clones only to the blastocyst stage. In other words, they would not create a human embryo in the laboratory. Today, they are campaigning hard to permit research for the creation of human embryos. This shows us that the research advocates are not keeping their promise because they are campaigning in order to create human embryos. The author's

The topic of cloning has brought much debate in science and also in society. Many

The 21st century however forecasts an astonishing increase in innovation in another direction. While previously overshadowed by its larger cousins, physics and chemistry, it seems likely that the biological sciences will steal the limelight in the future. Mapping the genome, reversing the aging process, and finding a cure for terminal illnesses, all represent primary objectives for science. Unfortunately, the ethical questions posed by innovations in biomedicine are far greater than those posed by advances in the physical sciences. Reproductive cloning is one of these innovations, and one that arguably poses the greatest threat to the world as we know it. The universal truth, blindly accepted by man for millennia, held that a human could only be born through the sexual union of a male and a female, to be exact, of an egg and a sperm. By cloning, however, a human life can be created in the laboratory. This is done by taking human DNA and inserting it into an egg cell, sans genetic material. The resultant cell is identical to the original, and can then be inserted into a uterus, either a human or an animal one, and be grown to term, to produce a baby, while circumventing nature’s means of reproduction.

Six years ago, an event in genetic history changed our perspective on "reproduction" and added to our conscience a new element in the study of biology. On February 23, 1997, the world was introduced to Dolly, a 6-month-old lamb that was cloned from a single cell taken from the tissue of an adult donor. Ever since the birth of this sheep, a question that never before existed now lingers in the mind of many: should human cloning be a part of our society?

has a guaranteed right to bear children, it is strictly a privilege. We should not go to extraordinary means to produce children who are genetically similar to their parents. This is especially selfish considering how many children are desperately waiting to be adopted by a caring family. Correcting this problem is a near impossible task. Even if embryonic stem cell research and in vitro fertilization were outlawed in the United

This bioethical principle is important when concluding ART an action ethically wrong, on account that the conceiving of a child is not done by the practice stated by God. According to the American Life League, it violates human dignity for reason that “maintaining both the unitive and procreative meanings of conjugal union guards against the demand for children as a right and the use of spouses for sex [1].” To piggyback off the violating of human dignity, assisted reproductive technology furthermore is “extremely problematic as it regards marriage itself [9].” Father Wasilewski writes in relation to in-vitro fertilization a process to bring a child into a family, however by God’s design it only involves two parties; man and woman [9]. “IVF becomes a means through which God’s design for marriage loses out to our own [9].” John Haas, is a consultant for the pro-lives movement, and states that “in the bible/God teaches us limits for procreation [3].” Haas further expresses that God may allow children to be conceived through IVF due to Him respecting man’s free will [3]. Assisted reproductive technology evidently infringes upon the divine command

In today’s society, people have the right to whether or not they want to reproduce. The actions partaken in, in order to reproduce is also a right earned. Silver states that once human cloning was introduced, it then opened up new perspectives of the entire reproductive choice. Silver clarifies that over time, reproductive choice has been interpreted to mean that people have the right to be or not to be genetic parents.

I believe the lack of ethical discussion is due to the difficult in stating or finding, concrete and relative, counter-arguments against this theory which halts any further discussion. Critics of this argument have stated that parents have kids for different instrumental reasons some examples are, to improve the relationship between the parents…. “children are almost always at least partly a means to their parents’ ends” <- prof Julian. This view that the clone is a means to the parents

Many Americans do not understand how risky it will be to clone a human, not to mention how hard it is to clone an animal. Many news article and publications offer this information to the public, because many scientists will not address the media with the real facts. In an article titled, “Creator of cloned sheep, Dolly, says he wouldn’t want to make copies of humans”, Dr. Wilmut stresses that only 1-5% of those embryos used in cloning result in live animals, and survivors are plagued with obesity, kidney problems and other troubles, and even Dolly is suffering from arthritis (1). Most cloned animals, like cows, pigs, goats, sheep, die during embryonic development, and others are stillborn with monstrous abnormalities. Bloated mothers have laborious miscarriages, and occasionally die themselves. The clones usually struggle for air in intensive care units, only to have to be euthanized, the process of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, according to an MSNBC article titled, “Much confusion over cloning” (1). The risks and uncertainties associated with the current technological state of cloning are the basis for why

Many people have asked, "Why would anyone want to clone a human being?" There are at least two good reasons: to allow families to conceive twins of exceptional individuals, and to allow childless couples to reproduce. In a free society we must also ask, "Are the negative consequences sufficiently compelling that we must prohibit consenting adults from doing this?" We will see that in general they are not. Where specific abuses are anticipated, these can be avoided by targeted laws and regulations, which I will suggest below.

Beginning with the moral argument, one must understand reproductive freedom. Most cloning activists say that reproduction, or the lack there of, is a natural freedom given to people (C). Restricting human cloning would be a violation of that right. Just as people can choose not to reproduce using contraception, abortion, or abstinence, people should be allowed to use all means possible within their ability to reproduce, such as through cloning and in vitro fertilization (C). Cloning is the application of this right specifically (C). Another benefit of cloning is the ability to clone someone who has died to console those who are grieving over their lost loved one or to clone the DNA of a person that was known for his of her greatness. Scientists would be able to recreate these people in a new environment (C). A clone's parent may have come from

In measuring the benefits, human reproductive cloning would be advantageous to the well-being of humans and because it is a fulfillment of personal autonomy. Firstly, this technique is a sound method for infertile couples to have a genetically related ‘child’ and it is a method to provide a patient medical treatment in a form of gene therapy or organ transplants (Hayry 2003). Secondly, the value of personal self-governance has been emphasized by human traditions in which the liberty of individuals is seen as important to individuals in our society today. Cloning would promote the well-being of some individuals without violating any person’s autonomy and conclusively is rational that people’s reproductive choice is not a realm to be interfered.

Essay Question (2): Explain in full the ‘life in the shadow’ argument against human reproductive cloning. How might the argument be objected to? Do you regard the argument to be morally decisive, in the sense that it establishes that human cloning for purely reproductive purposes must never be permitted? Explain and defend your answer.

Scientific experimentation has led us to many great discoveries such as: Chemotherapy, heart surgery, and bone marrow transplants. Recently scientists have discovered a new way to heal humans. This is known as cloning. Although they have yet to clone a human they have cloned sheep. Cloning has brought up a huge controversy among the American people. There are two sides to the story. Either you agree with cloning or you don’t. The only way to help make that decision is to look at the good and bad points of cloning.

When you hear the words human cloning, what comes to mind? The process of giving life to a being identical to one’s self. Or the method of reproduction that gives hope to those who have none through the established ways. Well, this may come as a shock to either side, but it is, and always will be an unnatural method of becoming a parent, and one that is not, and must not be accepted in human society. What is cloning you ask? Cloning is the process of creating multiple copies of D.N.A fragments, Molecules, even Organisms. There are those who would claim that to deny human society this option would be outrageous. But would it be so, can that really be true? The following evidence would prove their reasons otherwise, as human cloning is still